Mr. Hod says he thinks there’s a Catch-22 — that editors essentially argue against outing without proof while at the same time denying reporters the time and resources necessary to prove it. “I’m not a D.C. reporter,” he said. “They should be asking those questions; that’s their job, and the fact that they’re not doing it is because this is still an icky taboo subject.”

And he doesn’t want anyone to read too much into his choice not to name the politician. “I made it very clear who I was talking about,” Mr. Hod said. “It was not a matter of being cautious.”

Is he now concerned that this posting will damage his own career as a journalist?

“If I don’t get a job because of the fact that I asked this question, it’s not a job I’m supposed to have,” said Mr. Hod, adding that it was worth it because “the conversation has started.”

How do you feel about Hod's reaction to the uproar and discussion he sparked?

Thank You, Mr. Hod. Sincerely, Thank You. It's all because of the way this politician oppressed gays, all the while having sex with them. He deserves to be outed because the man is a hypocritical jerk.

Itay Hod is hot. Call me shallow, but that's just about the only part of this story that interested me.

Since when does a civil servant have any right to privacy? They pretty much live life in a fish bowl... their sexuality shouldn't be "off limits," especially if they're virulantly anti-gay in their policies.

I say that it is good to have friends in the Republican Party - but with the current crop of Republicans, if any of them could be called gay-friendly, then who needs enemies? If there are any closeted gay Republicans in office then they really NEED to come out or be outed. The closet kills - get out of it!